Component: WPMS Network-wide Mode (store one set of Pod fields, helpers, pages, templates, types; but individual sets of item data)

[sc0ttkclark]

No description provided.

[unsalkorkmaz]

+1 waiting for pods love to multisite :)

[sc0ttkclark]

These should be content types that individual sites can still add fields to, so we'll likely need a secondary pod lookup on the network site meta level

[sc0ttkclark]

I'd like to do this for Pods and Fields only, templates/pages/helpers/etc just won't be possible as easily.

[JayNeely]

Also would like to voice support for this feature.

[WeatherfordDigital]

I would love to have this feature for a project that I'm working on ... Looks like I will have to find a different solution as this is the only component that I am waiting on :(

[DannyJasper]

Any update on this? I really, really need this feature for a project I'm working on. It's either this or replacing Pods I'm afraid.

[unsalkorkmaz]

We discussed in #416
and its possible but i didnt had time to try

[DannyJasper]

That isnt the same right? I'd like what this issue states: Have 1 pod thats accessible in every site in a multisite environment, with all shared content (so content on site-x is the same as site-y).

[sc0ttkclark]

@DannyJasper What type of Pod are you looking at wanting to be shared?

[DannyJasper]

A custom post type. If thats what you mean?

Op 4 sep. 2013 om 23:14 heeft Scott Kingsley Clark notifications@github.com het volgende geschreven:

@DannyJasper What type of Pod are you looking at wanting to be shared?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[sc0ttkclark]

There's no way we could implement this feature ASAP for anything other than an Advanced Content Type (separate from WP objects). WordPress does not have a shared content/postmeta table, and any custom implementation of this would be extremely inefficient for us long term, plus the existing WP API functions and UI would be incompatible.

[sc0ttkclark]

I was referring to shared content, but this ticket isn't for shared content, that one is in #144

[DannyJasper]

Okay, so, for an ACP it is possible? That would be fine as well, dont think that would have huge disadvantages.

Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone

Op 4 sep. 2013 om 23:21 heeft Scott Kingsley Clark notifications@github.com het volgende geschreven:

There's no way we could implement this feature ASAP for anything other than an Advanced Content Type (separate from WP objects). WordPress does not have a shared content/postmeta table, and any custom implementation of this would be extremely inefficient for us long term, plus the existing WP API functions and UI would be incompatible.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[sc0ttkclark]

Our current focus for Pods 2.4 is #109 (Loop fields), #799 (Metaboxes), and #1573 (Advanced Portable Packages).

Contact me at scott@pods.io and we can figure out how best to work #144 in.

[julianmatz]

Is there anyway to do this currently, if all network sites share the exact same theme, template files and functions.php file? Shared CPTs, but not the content. I'm thinking it could be done by registering CPTs manually, but Pods would make the relationship fields so much easier.

[Shelob9]

@NETLINK Right now there is no way to do this in Pods. Each site's Pods settings are completely separate and unique to each site on a multisite network. You could use Pods Deploy to move your settings manually between sites.

[jaboi]

Help! I need this across a network for Advanced Content Types. I imported the same fields to the second site on the network, and I can't access the data via pods functions. When I imported the fields, they were placed in the database as wp_2_pods_fieldname -- is there a workaround?

@sc0ttkclark - you said above that something like this might be possible for ACTs. Still true? Any ideas?

[Shelob9]

@jaboi There is no current way to do this in place and we are a fair way from where the refactoring that Scott wants to do to make this possible can be done.

A work around would be to use the Pods JSON API to pull Pods configuration and content between site. I'd absolutely love for us to make that plugin, and would love to work on it, but it's not something we have the bandwidth to work on right now without it having its own funding.